I agree with Anne for once! "parent" is too tied to "parent element".
I don't mind "nearest ancestor" - I think that's standard terminology.
It's used in the XPath spec to describe how lang function works, we're
consistent with that at least :)
On 8/8/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:50:22 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:
> >> That sounds confusing to me because it doesn't actually define the
> >> constraints you seem to be working with such that non-sectioning
> >> elements are to be ignored in usage of "parent".
> >
> > I can't follow. How does "parent sectioning element" leave room to think
> > it might apply to a non-sectioning parent element?
>
> Because it refers to the parent in a tree. And parent (same for ancestor)
> has a well defined meaning in a tree. So for a tree like:
>
> <section>
> <div>
> <section>
>
> the idea that the "parent sectioning element" for the innermost <section>
> refers to the outermost <section> is non-obvious.
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>
>
>